3 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2023
  2. Nov 2022
    1. For example, I recently read about how Lin-Manuel Miranda tells the same story dozens of times to the same person because he forgets who he already told. Once, when he finished telling his collaborator Tommy Kail a story, Kail said, “That happened to me. I told you that.” They both laughed then Kail added, “That’s why you’re cut out for theater, because you’ll tell it like it’s the first time.” So in the margin I wrote, LIKE IT’S THE FIRST TIME:

      This is interesting for itself.

      (reference: Sicker in the Head)


      It's also interesting because it's an example of regular rehearsal that actors, comedians, storytellers, performers and even salespeople often do to slowly hone and improve their performance or pitch. Each retelling and the response it gives provides subtle hints and clues as to how to improve the story or performance on the next go round, or at least until the thing is both perfected and comes out the same way every time.

  3. Nov 2021
    1. SynopsisBackground: Defendant was charged with murder and tampering with evidence. The 243rd District Court, El Paso County, Luis Aguilar, J., suppressed two of three custodial statements. State appealed. The El Paso Court of Appeals, 2018 WL 4659578 and 2018 WL 4660185, affirmed in part and reversed in part. State petitioned for discretionary review, which was granted.Holding: The Court of Criminal Appeals, Keel, J., held that officers misled defendant into believing that her recorded statement during car ride with officers looking for body would not be used against her.

      TDCAA: If you had read the lower court’s opinion and all the briefs in this case, you would never have expected the majority opinion that came from the court this week. Everyone assumed that Bible applied to this case—it was just a question of whether, under the Bible factors, the second statement was part of a second interview or merely a continuation of the first. But the court holds that Bible is inapplicable when the second statement is not itself “warned and waived.” This turns the Bible analysis on its head: If the interview was a continuation under Bible, then it was warned and waived.

      You can view the majority’s opinion one of two ways, neither of which is explicit in the opinion. First, the majority may be saying that if a statement is involuntary under Art. 38.21, then the Art. 38.22, §3 recording requirements are irrelevant. But the majority never actually holds that the statement was involuntary in light of the trial court’s findings.

      Second, the majority may be implicitly adopting Judge Yeary’s view that the recording requirements in Art. 38.22, §3 apply to each discrete recording—regardless of how many separate statements or interrogations there are. But again, the majority doesn’t actually hold this. Instead, the majority hedges and simply claims to distinguish Bible based on “the unique facts of this case.” In the meantime, prosecutors should probably advise detectives to re-Mirandize whenever they start a new recording. Just in case.